Sigma 50-500 vs Canon 100-400 IS, RAW for wildlife

[Ladyhawke]

I just got the Canon Rebel w/ 75-300 non-IS f4-5.6. I want to take photos of wildlife (primarily deer) this hunting season. I am trying to learn about RAW images to assist me in my zoom, crop, and enlarge printing. I have been reading reviews. I am taking classes at Wolf camera and consulting with folks there – classmates and store folk. I like the 75-300 in that it is portable and takes fairly good long distance shots. We are looking to see if we can do better without going way overboard. I realize I am trying to cram in a big decision in a short period of time but I need to get learning whatever it is I decide to go with.

I just bought a Sigma 50-500 f4-6.3 (again non-IS) and am in the process of evaluating it. We wanted to try for the extra reach since we knew sorta what the 75-300 f5.6 would do. I am stumbling through using a remote to reduce movement, RAW images, having to change to manual focus for low light, setting up a tripod or suitable sub, and so on.….

I would like your opinions on this Sigma versus the Canon 100-400 f4-5.6 with IS for a few hundred more. Or some other perhaps. I am definitely not ready for the $$ of the straight 400 class lens. The folks that we have been talking with so far do not feel the IS is worth the money but I really wonder. Some of my shots are not too bad had they be a bit more steady.

I see a lot of good talk about the 70-200 f2.8 but I think we want more reach. Please share your thoughts on what lens, using RAW, anything that would help in a pinch. Thanks

[sjprg]

The 50-500 is an execelent lens. It is big AND heavy, but the results are well worth the effort. I'm 6'3 and 230# so I can carry it easily and quite often use it as my walkaround lens. The Mt Tam, and the Ed Levine gallarys have 50-500 images.

http://www.pbase.com/sjprg/galleries

[RikWriter]

You can get the f5.6L 400mm Canon for about a grand.
http://www.adorama.com/CA40056AF.html

[SeanDempsey]

I had a 50-500 sigma... soldit for the 100-400

With the Canon, you'll keep more shots, due to the superior glass and IS

the 100mm is pretty inconsequential compared to that.

Ditch the sigma, get the Canon

[CyberDyneSystems]

I'd seriously consider the weight of the Sigma before deciding.. get this lens in your hands.

On the other hand the 100-400mm IS is a relatively lightweight lens.

This can be a big factor. For my use the 50-500mm was NEVER used hand held. I allways used a monopod. The 100-400mm however is a synch handheld.

As far as primes.. do look at the 400mm f/5.6 It is about $300.00 LESS than the 100-400mm IS .. almost the same as the 50-500mm from reputable vendors price wise..

It is lighter than the 50-500mm and has the fastest AF of the three lenses...

And as far as image quality it is the best of the three!

[Tom W]

Brendan compares the Bigma with the 100-400L here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=9490848

The "L" comes out on top. The question is whether it is "on top" enough to warrant the extra $$. Do note that the 100-400 has IS which is a great feature (its the first lens I've had with it, and I am pretty impressed).

[MrKickalot]

I agree the the canon is better... how can we doubt so many good reviews from the "Big Dogs" on here!! BUT.. I rented a Tamron 200-400 the other day (got it real cheap) and HATED push/pull... The 100-400 is a push/pull lens if I ma not mistaken!! Just somehting else to consider!!

[blackviolet]

i love my bigma, but it's a light hungry lens. i don't recommend it @500mm at f/5.6. at f/6.7 is not bad, but at f/8 it's awesome.

heavy? i spose it's all relative - i'm happy to use it running up and down the sidelines of rugby matches for 3 - 4 hours a day on saturdays -often handheld with the monopod hanging down from the lens and a 10d and big ed at the back. but if u are looking to shoot wildlife, you're likely to be holding it more.

for daylight sports the bigma is a great lens, but i'm guessing the 100-400L IS is going to be a bit more suited to the task - with IS and better under lower light conditions

[nosquare2003]

There is a new Tamron lens 200-500 f/5.6-6.3 but I haven't seen any reviews on it.

I hope that Canon will release this focal length with IS. There are some duplication of focal lengths for 70-200 and 100-400. It makes more sense to have a 200-500 (at least for me).

[Jim_T]

IS is sweet.. It does make a difference.. Especially at 300mm +

If you can find a dealer that will let you, try out both lenses on your camera... Try focus and hold on something for a few seconds with both the Sigma and Canon lens at 400mm The benefit of IS will be SO obvious..

I think the 100-400 is a bit overpriced.. Because Canon can get away with it :) But the IS really is worth it..

[danphoto1]

I own both lenses and the 100-400 IS gets much more use If you put 1.4 extender on it it will be close to the same lens but with IS. I'm not sure if the 1.4 works on the 10D or rebel it meaning auto focus and IS. I like the push pull zoom feature of the canon also. Canon lenses work much better on the camera and if you upgrade your camera later on the Sigma might not work right. It has not been an issue yet. mMy feelings the Canon is sharper . :lol:

[FrenchAmateur]

100-400 is excellent Ã* 100, 200, very good at 300 and 400 mm.
This is not the case of the Sigma, not to speak about the IS...

[CyberDyneSystems]

May I also recomend you consider the Canon 400mm f/5.6 L prime.
More affordable than the zoom... and faster AF. :)

[FrenchAmateur]

But not better at 400 mm... and without stabilizer... :)

[danphoto1]

8) I still love my 100-400 IS L lens. I think it is the best all around lens for this type of stuff.